Survival and nutritional requirements of three bacteria isolated from ultrapure water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bacteria isolated previously from ultrapure water (UPW) systems were examined for their ability to survive in UPW, with the ultimate goal of elucidating potential carbon and energy sources for the bacteria. Two strains of Ralstonia pickettii isolated from different areas within the UPW system (pretreatment and polishing loop, and referred to as strains 3A1 and MF254A, respectively) and a strain of Bradyrhizobium sp. were compared to increase our understanding of the fundamental behavior of bacteria contaminating UPW. R. pickettii (3A1) grew significantly slower in R2A medium, with a final cell yield much lower than the isolate from the polishing loop. In addition, R. pickettii MF254A showed a broader substrate range than either strain 3A1 or Bradyrhizobium sp. In UPW, there appears to be a threshold cell concentration (approximately 10(6) colony-forming units/ml), whereby the cell numbers remain constant for a prolonged period of 6 months or more. Below this concentration, rapid proliferation is observed until the threshold concentration is attained. Preliminary experiments suggested that nitrogen gas (frequently added to UPW storage tanks) may contribute to growth of Bradyrhizobium sp. Above the threshold concentration, the strain of Ralstonia sp. isolated from the polishing loop was capable of cryptic growth with heat-killed cells in UPW. However, cryptic growth was not observed when the cells supplied as nutrients were killed using UV254 light. Furthermore, cryptic growth did not appear to contribute significantly to proliferation of Bradyrhizobium sp. or Ralstonia sp. 3A1 (isolated from the pretreatment loop). We believe that cryptic growth may aid survival of the bacteria in UPW, but further experiments are warranted to prove this phenomenon conclusively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".